Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation ordinance (cap.347)

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2024

LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY, LTD (ASSIGNEE OF CORNHILL ENTERPRISES LTD) 對 LAU CHUI WA及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1558
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3254/2021

The court held that the first defendant’s adverse possession pleadings were manifestly unsustainable and irreconcilable with contemporaneous registered documents and long series of rent receipts demonstrating occupation with the Ng family’s permission; those parts of the defence and counterclaim disclosing adverse possession claims were struck out under Order 18(19) as disclosing no reasonable cause, frivolous or an abuse of process. However the court declined to strike out the entirety of the defence and counterclaim because possible lawful permission/yearly tenancy issues remained unresolve…
11 Dec 2023

TANG CHEUK LUN AND ANOTHER v. WILLIAM YING, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TERRY YING alias TERRY T.C. YING, TERRY YING TING CHENG or, 應鼎成, DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1192/2021

On the pleadings and without contest the Court was satisfied the Plaintiffs and their predecessors had continuous adverse possession of the Lots from 1 December 1992 with the requisite intention to possess such that the Defendant was statute‑barred by virtue of the Limitation Ordinance from bringing any action to recover the Lots from 1 December 2004; accordingly declaratory relief was properly granted on the default judgment application.
5 Feb 2018

香港中山同鄉會有限公司 v. 高榮及另二人

Citation

[2018] HKDC 134
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4726/2016

On the pleadings the plaintiff established both factual possession and intention to possess for the requisite period and thus acquired possessory title by adverse possession; accordingly the defendants' title was extinguished by operation of ss.7 and 17 Limitation Ordinance (Cap.347) and declarations in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Summons were granted; however an order to register the plaintiff as registered owner was inappropriate and refused.
4 Aug 2004

MAN FUNG CHOY v. MAN SHING LI

Citation

MAN FUNG CHOY v. MAN SHING LI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/2004

The judge erred in dismissing the application because he relied on the witness's own statement of irrelevance without independently assessing relevance; where a supplemental statement corrects an inaccuracy caused by the party's solicitors and bears on credibility it should be allowed, and the court should permit filing and service of the relevant portions of the expert report; accordingly the appeals are allowed and the prior orders are set aside.
25 Feb 2004

CHAN SUK YIN AND ANOTHER v. HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

CHAN SUK YIN AND ANOTHER v. HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA477/2000

The plaintiffs proved factual possession and animus possidendi for the relevant 20-year period from early 1962 to early 1982; the defendant failed to prove any licence or other right that prevented possession being adverse; accordingly the plaintiffs acquired a possessory title and the paper owner's title was extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance, so declarations in favour of the plaintiffs were ordered and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
18 Nov 2002

TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV214/2002

Letting the land to tenants does not necessarily interrupt adverse possession; where the squatter retains dominion (notably by receipt of rents) and the true owner has been dispossessed for the requisite period, the possessory title is acquired and the true owner's title is extinguished under the Limitation Ordinance. Therefore the plaintiff had acquired possessory title and the appeal fails.
13 Jan 2000

NEW ADVANCED LTD. v. LAU HI TIM AND ANOTHER

Citation

NEW ADVANCED LTD. v. LAU HI TIM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3511/1999

The court held that the evidence of prolonged non-enforcement (no demands for repayment for at least 12 years), the chain of title inquiries, and the prior discharge of a related mortgage demonstrated that the mortgage and sub-mortgage were time-barred and therefore incapable of subsistence or unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap.347).

Hong Kong Case Law

LAI CHI KOK AMUSEMENT PARK COMPANY, LTD (ASSIGNEE OF CORNHILL ENTERPRISES LTD) 對 LAU CHUI WA及另一人

TANG CHEUK LUN AND ANOTHER v. WILLIAM YING, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TERRY YING alias TERRY T.C. YING, TERRY YING TING CHENG or, 應鼎成, DECEASED

香港中山同鄉會有限公司 v. 高榮及另二人

MAN FUNG CHOY v. MAN SHING LI

CHAN SUK YIN AND ANOTHER v. HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD

TANG KWAN TAI v. TANG KOON LAM AND ANOTHER

NEW ADVANCED LTD. v. LAU HI TIM AND ANOTHER